Huge Break-through in Fusion! *click bait*

[Jimmy Higgins]

link

The UK-based JET laboratory has smashed its own world record for the amount of energy it can extract by squeezing together two forms of hydrogen.

If nuclear fusion can be successfully recreated on Earth it holds out the potential of virtually unlimited supplies of low-carbon, low-radiation energy.

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).

This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

Alright boys, this sounds aweso... wait... what was that?

The experiments produced 59 megajoules of energy over five seconds (11 megawatts of power).

Wouldn't this be like a virgin who no longer was a virgin saying he smashed his girls I had sex with record?

Fusion reactions in the lab famously consume more energy to initiate than they can output. At Jet, two 500 megawatt flywheels are used to run the experiments.

On to ITER and fusion in 50 years*!

* forever

Now let's shift the discussion to wind power and piss bilby off.

 

[Swammerdami]

Now let's shift the discussion to wind power and piss bilby off.

I know nothing about fusion research, but I have a simple plan that lets us harness fusion power immediately.

Locate our societies near a large fusion source. Not too close: I envision a VERY large fusion source so we'll want to stay several million miles away. Use the fusion heat to help move a large gas reservoir at high speeds. We'll use an inert gas like nitrogen, or maybe add an oxidizer so the circulating gas reservoir can have other uses and serve double duty. As with much power generations, we'll just let the moving fluid drive turbines to produce electricity.

Yes, most of the incoming fusion energy will be wasted, but we can use some of the excess radiation to provide lighting and warmth at a certain beach, where I will sit sipping Mai Tais with little paper umbrellas.

 

[Elixir]

Wait - am I given to understand that for the first time in more than a half century, clean, unlimited fusion power is only 19.99 or fewer years away?

 

[steve_bank]

Now let's shift the discussion to wind power and piss bilby off.

I know nothing about fusion research, but I have a simple plan that lets us harness fusion power immediately.

Locate our societies near a large fusion source. Not too close: I envision a VERY large fusion source so we'll want to stay several million miles away. Use the fusion heat to help move a large gas reservoir at high speeds. We'll use an inert gas like nitrogen, or maybe add an oxidizer so the circulating gas reservoir can have other uses and serve double duty. As with much power generations, we'll just let the moving fluid drive turbines to produce electricity.

Yes, most of the incoming fusion energy will be wasted, but we can use some of the excess radiation to provide lighting and warmth at a certain beach, where I will sit sipping Mai Tais with little paper umbrellas.

I think you are describing a Dyson Sphere. Build a shell around a star.

 

[steve_bank]

Working fusion generators have been 10 years away since the 80s.

Given the economics of energy if it were practical the free market competition would make it happen.

 

[Swammerdami]

Wait - am I given to understand that for the first time in more than a half century, clean, unlimited fusion power is only 19.99 or fewer years away?

The article mentioned a prototype reactor in the 2040's so it's still 20+ years away. Just for the prototype.

 

[skepticalbip]

Working fusion generators have been 10 years away since the 80s.

Given the economics of energy if it were practical the free market competition would make it happen.

Like all new technologies, it will not become practical until (if ever) the technical challenges are overcome. Commercial air travel was not practical in the 1800s so there was no commercial competition until after the technical challenges were resolved in the early 1900s.

 

[steve_bank]

Wait - am I given to understand that for the first time in more than a half century, clean, unlimited fusion power is only 19.99 or fewer years away?

The article mentioned a prototype reactor in the 2040's so it's still 20+ years away. Just for the prototype.

Seriously, starting in g the 80s fusion power was just around the corner. Then in the 90s it was just around the corner. A lot f time and money went into research and test reactors with no practical results. I take it as more of an engineering problem.

There was an announcement last year of a fusion startup in Washington. There is always the possibilty that somebody may hit on a solution, I would not invest in it.

 

[Hermit]

There's a fly in the ointment.

 

[Copernicus]

Oxford is just tooting its own horn. All universities do this as part of their PR program. This looks like a much more relevant advance to those in the technical community than the public, but it is a way of reminding potential donors and prospective students that the university is doing cutting edge research. Jimmy is right to label it click bait.

 

[skepticalbip]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

 

[Elixir]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

Heh. There was talk of "lots of mini H-bombs going off in a containment field" waaay back. But I don't think any hardware was ever built... The term "sustainable fusion reaction" was bandied about as well, which never sounded to me like something anyone would want to be too close to...

 

[steve_bank]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

You mean a fusion nuclear bomb?

Do you have a reference for that claim?

Ditto on the post on academia and getting grants for R&D.

 

[skepticalbip]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

You mean a fusion nuclear bomb?

Do you have a reference for that claim?

Ditto on the post on academia and getting grants for R&D.

Of course I do. The first thermonuclear blast was in 1952. It was the first example of a man-made uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction. What is needed is a controlled nuclear fusion reaction so that the energy released is at a useful rate. Our current devices such as the TOKOMAK does create nuclear fusion so creates nuclear energy through fusion but more energy is needed to generate and contain the reaction than is produced by the reaction.

 

[steve_bank]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

You mean a fusion nuclear bomb?

Do you have a reference for that claim?

Ditto on the post on academia and getting grants for R&D.

Of course I do. The first thermonuclear blast was in 1952. It was the first example of a man-made uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction. What is needed is a controlled nuclear fusion reaction so that the energy released is at a useful rate. Our current devices such as the TOKOMAK does create nuclear fusion so creates nuclear energy through fusion but more energy is needed to contain the reaction that produced by the reaction.

There is no record of a fusion reactor that is stable and pruducing useful amounts of energy continuusly.

History of nuclear fusion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[skepticalbip]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

Heh. There was talk of "lots of mini H-bombs going off in a containment field" waaay back. But I don't think any hardware was ever built... The term "sustainable fusion reaction" was bandied about as well, which never sounded to me like something anyone would want to be too close to...

There were several hardware designs built and still are being built and used. The most successful design so far are of the TOKAMAK design. But none have, so far, even reached a Q of 1.

 

[skepticalbip]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

You mean a fusion nuclear bomb?

Do you have a reference for that claim?

Ditto on the post on academia and getting grants for R&D.

Of course I do. The first thermonuclear blast was in 1952. It was the first example of a man-made uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction. What is needed is a controlled nuclear fusion reaction so that the energy released is at a useful rate. Our current devices such as the TOKOMAK does create nuclear fusion so creates nuclear energy through fusion but more energy is needed to contain the reaction that produced by the reaction.

There is no record of a fusion reactor that is stable and pruducing useful amounts of energy continuusly.

Exactly. That is what I said. "Our current devices such as the TOKAMAK does create nuclear fusion so creates nuclear energy through fusion but more energy is needed to generate and contain the reaction than the energy produced by the reaction."

We can produce controlled nuclear fusion but it isn't useful energy because the devices require more energy to produce and contain the reaction than is generated by the reaction.

 

[steve_bank]

Geee...sounds humongous! Maybe even ginormous. Huge doesn't quite cover it.

In any practical system the startup has to be bootstrapped, an external source has to be used to get it going then tapping the output to power the system takes over. Commonly used in power supplies to boost efficiency.


The Princeton TOKAMAK reactor used off peak grid energy to slowly spin up a large flywheel. The flywheel was used to power the sort laser burst.to cause implosion and intimate fusion.. You have to look at the total system.

 

[lpetrich]

About some purported nuclear-fusion breakthrough, I'll believe it when I see it.

Controlled nuclear fusion has turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had expected.

There is also the question of economic preemption. Wind energy and solar energy are successfully competing with fossil fuels and nuclear fission in electricity generation, what nuclear fusion would be good for. If wind and solar get much cheaper, then it will be *very* hard for nuclear fusion to compete.

 

[bilby]

Creating a nuclear fusion reaction with enormous surplus energy was accomplished in the early 1950s. The problem today is not how to produce surplus fusion energy but how to produce it with efficient controls.

Even that's not particularly challenging. The real problem is how to produce it without also producing strategic weapons in violation of international treaties.

You can simply drill a deep hole, drop in an H-bomb, and then extract power as though it were a geothermal source. But that's not allowed.

The only real "benefit" of fusion is that it provides a convenient just-out-of-reach alternative to fission power, so people can say 'we shouldn't build fission plants because in two decades fusion power will render them obsolete'.

It's one of the many PRATTs beloved of anti-nuclear activists.

In the very unlikely event that a fusion energy production technology that is genuinely economically viable were to be developed, the people who have been desperately blocking the widespread adoption of fission power would also block the adoption of the new technology. They only like technologies that don't work, because half of them are deeply in thrall to the Appeal to Nature fallacy, and are useful idiots for the other half, who are getting rich from fossil fuels.

Wind power is ideal for these nutters - because it only works about a third of the time. Solar power is even better, as it's reliably useless a good three quarters of the time. Both are an excellent way to force people to burn fossil gas (or to import electricity produced by burning fossil fuel elsewhere).

Just ask the Germans. Or the Californians.

The only nations and regions in the world that have succeeded in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation below 100gCO₂eq/kWh are those who have used hydroelectric, nuclear, or geothermal power (or combinations of these three). VAST amounts of cash have been thrown at wind and solar power for three decades, and yet those places that made these huge investments still have high emissions - largely due to burning gas when their renewables fail (although some, like Germany, also burn lots of coal).

Fusion power is a red herring. We need to do what works (not what we merely hope might work) to lower carbon emissions; And we need to do it ASAP. Not in a few decades when magic fusion power or magic grid-scale batteries might become available.